# Original Sin and Procreation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [January 4, 2006, 2:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/original-sin-and-procreation/338324 "2006-01-04T02:00:48Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 9\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Zahava424](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/76d3ee/32.png) [@Zahava424](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zahava424)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 2:40am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/original-sin-and-procreation/338324/21 "2006-01-06T02:40:54Z")
> [@the raindog](#): > > Adam and Eve were _commanded_ to populate the earth—and sex is/was part that divine command. > > **Further the first mention of A/E having sexual intercourse is only _after_ they were expelled from Eden.** (Gen 2:17; 3:17,23; 4:1) (Bolding mine) Sorry to be picky, but wouldn’t the fact that the first mention of Adam and Eve having sex came after expulsion from the Garden of Eden support the theory that sex was introduced after the Fall, and not before? I see the rest of your points, and everyone has been very helpful setting me straight on this one. But I’m unclear as to how the bolded part above proves your point. Thanks for all your help Zahava ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 3:13am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/original-sin-and-procreation/338324/22 "2006-01-06T03:13:07Z")
> [@Zahava424](#): > > (Bolding mine) > > Sorry to be picky, but wouldn’t the fact that the first mention of Adam and Eve having sex came after expulsion from the Garden of Eden support the theory that sex was introduced after the Fall, and not before? > > I see the rest of your points, and everyone has been very helpful setting me straight on this one. But I’m unclear as to how the bolded part above proves your point. > > Thanks for all your help > > Zahava It would support that that Adam and Eve first had sex _after_ they transgressed. It would certainly appear, however, that _the command_ to populate the earth came _before_ they transgressed. I’m sorry if I wasn’t clear. _What it wouldn’t support however_, is the notion that the “forbidden fruit” was a symbol for sexual relations, for Adam and Eve both transgressed and were evicted _before the first mention of sex between them._ IOW, if the forbidden fruit was in fact a symbol of sexual relations, Adam and Eve were punished for a crime _they hadn’t yet committed!_ More importantly, there is simply no mention—either implicitly or explicitly—that ties sex to the “fruit” or it’s “tree.” It takes a tremondous amount of creative license to make the case that sex has anything to do with original sin. It’s just not in the text----either in the immediate texts in Genesis—or can it be supported contextually in the rest of the bible. ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 3:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/original-sin-and-procreation/338324/23 "2006-01-06T03:51:47Z")
The Orthodox Church has traditionally taught that Adam and Eve indeed did not engage in sexual relations before the fall. The “forbidden fruit” itself was not sex, but the necessity of carnal, lustful union for procreation was a result of the corruption engendered by the fall. Per Athanasius the Great: > [@](#): > > God’s original intention was that we give birth not through marriage and corruption; the violation of the commandment introduced marriage as a result of Adam’s transgression, i.e., as the result of falling away from the commandment given to him by God. (note: in Orthodox theology “corruption” is used as a synonym for “change”; hence the references in hymnography to the Theotokos having given birth “without corruption” – she remained a virgin (both in the literal sense and in the sense of having her reproductive organs unchanged and undamaged from the stress of pregnancy and labor) even after giving birth.) and per John of Damascus: > [@](#): > > And when, after the transgression, Adam heard, dust thou art and unto dust shalt thou return, when death entered into the world by reason of the transgression, then Adam knew Eve his wife, and she conceived and bare seed. So that to prevent the wearing out and destruction of the race by death, marriage was devised that the race of men may be preserved through the procreation of children. > > But they will perhaps ask, what then is the meaning of “male and female,” and “Be fruitful and multiply?” In answer we shall say that “Be fruitful and multiply” does not altogether refer to the multiplying by the marriage connection. For God had power to multiply the race also in different ways, if they kept the precept unbroken to the end. But God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.” Exactly how Adam and Eve would procreate before the fall is not known; in any case, it’s rather moot, since it never happened. ---
**Author:** ![Zahava424](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/76d3ee/32.png) [@Zahava424](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zahava424)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 4:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/original-sin-and-procreation/338324/24 "2006-01-06T04:05:38Z")
> [@yBeayf](#): > > The Orthodox Church has traditionally taught that Adam and Eve indeed did not engage in sexual relations before the fall. The “forbidden fruit” itself was not sex, but the necessity of carnal, lustful union for procreation was a result of the corruption engendered by the fall. Ah-- vindication! Apparently I did not pull this idea out of thin air! So there _is_ a Christian doctrine that holds that sex would not have come to be without the Fall. **yBeayf** , do you have a cite for this position in the Orthodox Church? Also (I know, my ignorance is showing), what is the Orthodox Church? Is it the same as Eastern Orthodox, or is it a different denomination that I’m not aware of? How large is it as a Christian sect? Are we talking Catholic, Methodist, or Wesleyan? ---
**Author:** ![yBeayf](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/e274bd/32.png) [@yBeayf](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yBeayf)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/original-sin-and-procreation/338324/25 "2006-01-06T04:12:53Z")
> [@](#): > > yBeayf, do you have a cite for this position in the Orthodox Church? Er, I provided two of them in my post. I can certainly go dig up more, but I assure you they’ll say essentially the same thing. > [@](#): > > Also (I know, my ignorance is showing), what is the Orthodox Church? Is it the same as Eastern Orthodox, or is it a different denomination that I’m not aware of? Orthodox = Eastern Orthodox (Russian, Greek, Serbian, they’re all the same, just different nationalities.) > [@](#): > > How large is it as a Christian sect? Are we talking Catholic, Methodist, or Wesleyan? Second in numbers, behind the Catholics, having somewhere between 200 to 250 million adherents. ---
**Author:** ![Fear\_Itself](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/fear_itself/32/19637_2.png) [@Fear\_Itself](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fear_Itself)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 4:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/original-sin-and-procreation/338324/26 "2006-01-06T04:41:53Z")
> [@Zahava424](#): > > Therefore, if (as would have ideally happened) they had not sinned, how would Adam and Eve have reproduced? I don’t think they would have had any need to reproduce if they had not eaten the fruit. > [@](#): > > “but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil,\*\* for when you eat of it you will surely die.”\*\* There are two ways to interpret this: either God meant that eating the apple would cause them to die immediately, or God meant that they would not ever die unless the ate the fruit. If it was the former, then God is a liar, because they ate the fruit and _did not die_. Since lying is an imperfect act, God must have meant the latter interpretation, and Adam and Eve were immortal prior to eating the fruit, and had no reason to reproduce. ---
**Author:** ![Zahava424](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/76d3ee/32.png) [@Zahava424](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zahava424)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 5:33am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/original-sin-and-procreation/338324/27 "2006-01-06T05:33:51Z")
> [@Zahava424](#): > > yBeayf, do you have a cite for this position in the Orthodox Church? > [@yBeayf](#): > > Er, I provided two of them in my post. Sorry; looking over my post, that question does seem really dumb. I meant to ask where you were quoting from. Is there a source site from which you drew those two quotes? Did you have them in print? Just curious. It doesn’t really matter. When you’re looking for authoritative Christian sources, you obviously don’t need to substantiate the words of saints with a link. ---
**Author:** ![raindog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/2bfe46/32.png) [@raindog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/raindog)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 7:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/original-sin-and-procreation/338324/28 "2006-01-06T07:30:27Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > I don’t think they would have had any need to reproduce if they had not eaten the fruit. Except God’s stated purpose, _consistent with the command given to Adam & Eve_, was **to reproduce** —to become many and fill the earth. Further, whether one believes the flood was an actual event or not, God reiterated his purpose to Noah when the human population was reduced to Noah and his immediate family. It is clear that A/E were the first humans, in a grand plan to have a populated earth. ---
**Author:** ![monavis](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/e0b2c6/32.png) [@monavis](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/monavis)\ **Post date:** [January 6, 2006, 12:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/original-sin-and-procreation/338324/29 "2006-01-06T12:05:41Z")
> [@Fear Itself](#): > > I don’t think they would have had any need to reproduce if they had not eaten the fruit. > There are two ways to interpret this: either God meant that eating the apple would cause them to die immediately, or God meant that they would not ever die unless the ate the fruit. If it was the former, then God is a liar, because they ate the fruit and _did not die_. Since lying is an imperfect act, God must have meant the latter interpretation, and Adam and Eve were immortal prior to eating the fruit, and had no reason to reproduce. From what Catholics have told me,the quote from Genesis that “You will surely die” meant death of the body as Adam and Eve were meant to live forever,now because of their disobeying God they would die, not necessarily right away, and that is why human life is limited to just a short time. Loss of a soul came later, perhaps after some one was knocked unconscience or comatose, and came to. Monavis [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/original-sin-and-procreation/338324.md?page=1)